Article 226 relief against tax assessment delay is exceptional, requiring a cogent explanation before bypassing statutory appeal limits.

Belated writ petitions challenging assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act could be entertained under Article 226 only exceptionally, because the statutory appeal scheme provided a 60-day first appeal with a further 30-day condonable period. The Court stressed that writ jurisdiction cannot be used routinely to bypass that limitation structure, and interference is justified only for strong grounds such as jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice, or other grave legal infirmities. Delay was condoned where each petitioner gave a credible explanation, including illness, death of the practitioner, accident, or COVID-19 disruption, but petitions with long, unexplained delay and no due diligence were rejected for laches.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether belated writ petitions challenging assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 could be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the statutory appeal mechanism and prescribed limitation. (ii) Whether the delay in filing the individual writ petitions was satisfactorily explained so as to justify condonation and grant of relief.

Issue (i): Whether belated writ petitions challenging assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 could be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the statutory appeal mechanism and prescribed limitation.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 provides a first appeal within 60 days, with a further condonable period of 30 days. The Court noted that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is wide, but it cannot be exercised in a manner inconsistent with the legislative intent behind a rigid limitation structure. Reliance was placed on the principle that while exceptional grounds such as lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, or other grave legal infirmities may justify interference, a petitioner cannot, as a matter of course, bypass the statutory limitation merely because the writ jurisdiction is available. The Court therefore treated delayed writ intervention as exceptional and dependent on a persuasive explanation for the delay.

Conclusion: The Court held that belated writ petitions against assessment orders are not barred in principle under Article 226, but can be entertained only sparingly and on a strong explanation for the delay.

Issue (ii): Whether the delay in filing the individual writ petitions was satisfactorily explained so as to justify condonation and grant of relief.

Analysis: The Court examined the explanation furnished in each batch of cases on its own facts. Where the delay was supported by circumstances such as illness of the consultant, death of the practitioner, accident, or the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, and where compliance with imposed terms had been made, the delay was accepted. In several other matters, the explanations were found wanting because the delay remained unexplained for long periods, or the petitioners failed to show due diligence in pursuing statutory remedies. The Court emphasized that a petitioner must cross the threshold of a credible explanation for the delay before the writ court can examine the merits or grant liberty to file belated appeals.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned in the petitions where the explanation was accepted, but the remaining petitions were dismissed in limine for unexplained laches.

Final Conclusion: The batch was disposed of by granting relief only in those cases where the delay was satisfactorily explained and by refusing relief in the others, leaving the assessee to pursue statutory appeals only in the permitted matters.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 226 can be invoked against tax assessment orders beyond the statutory appeal period only in exceptional cases supported by a cogent and credible explanation for delay; otherwise, the writ court should not ordinarily bypass the legislative limitation scheme.

---